GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Future tanks could surprise critics

• 49604
  

  Nice write up but where are your sources? I see a lot of quotes but nothing to lead me to any works cited. If you can include that it will give your article more credibility.

  Rob Posted April 29, 2008 9:19 AM
• 23833
  

  Excellent article, well balanced in a time where a balanced look at the DoD is not popular.

  IMHO, it'll be some time before heavy passive armour goes away. However, the move to lighter, faster, yet some how well protected is a good thing. Supply trains are extremely vunerable, and so are personnel carriers which have allot less armour than a tank yet often are required for frontal assualts against the same threat.

  Let test it, prove it, and do it right. If it don't work, we stick with a solution we trust.

  Btw: one last thing. You should look into into the FTR (Future Transport Rotorcraft) and similar projects. This will be required to move the FCS on the battlefield, but the cost is so scary (I bet) that no one is quoting when and how much yet.

  Sal Magnone Posted May 22, 2007 9:42 AM
• 18922
  

  A good, good article!! Very insightful!!!

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 26, 2006 1:40 PM
• 18859
  

  The big heavy tank always will be needed in any type of war! The big heavy tanks were developed in WWII to push through hedge rows in Europe. Remember we didn't use many tanks in the Pacific compared with Europe.

  The "new" war will be urban and we will need the heavy tanks to push through buildings and wall, such as the one that surrounded Berlin for decades.

  A tank is a bulldozer with cannons and guns. Take away the bulldozer aspect of the tank and you no longer have a tank!

  Taxpayer Posted September 22, 2006 6:52 AM
• 18838
  

  This is a great, insightful article that shows the circular nature of our thinking and the limits of our ability to predict the future of warfare. One of the reasons the Army bundled all these development programs together under the FCS banner was to compete with the other services' big ticket procurement items such as aircraft carriers and stealth bombers.

  Alas, what might have made sense several years ago is now just a very large target for budget cutters. I remember sitting in the Pentagon auditorium in 1999 as Shinseki outlined his vision of a lighter, more readily deployable force and I was reminded of what a headache it was to deploy Task Force Hawk earlier that year to Albania -- it took forever! By the same token, I wondered what an old tanker like Shinseki was thinking as he outlined the future demise of his branch. Couldn't he see the need to retain some heavy armor somewhere? After all, the finest roadblock/checkpoint I've ever encountered is an M1 astride an intersection -- a 120mm tube staring at you certainly grabs your attention. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 21, 2006 9:54 AM